Pekka,
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
(Note: this message is not directly related to the main point of this
thread.)
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:51:12 +0200 (EET),
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I'm not even sure if we could
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Note that KAME only supports this through manual configuration (and a
> > fix) -- clarified in off-the-list discussion.
> >
> > To be compliant with the paragraph:
> >
> > Routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or
> > de
Tailed Cc: list a bit.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> >You may ask: how is this possible? we don't have any site-border
> >discovery mechanisms?
>
> We don't need an autoconfiguration mechanism for every feature of
> the IPv6 specifications. If routers can be configured to act
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
Note that KAME only supports this through manual configuration (and a
fix) -- clarified in off-the-list discussion.
To be compliant with the paragraph:
Routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or
destinati
Mark,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brian Haberman wrote:
Note that KAME only supports this through manual configuration (and a
fix) -- clarified in off-the-list discussion.
To be compliant with the paragraph:
Routers must not forward any packets with
Rich,
Richard Draves wrote:
Some read it (many):
"if I configure a site here, I must also block site-locals
from spreading
out or false site-locals coming in"
Some others read it:
"if I use site-locals here, my upstream router will block
the site-local
addresses from spreading out and prev
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Richard Draves wrote:
> > The latter is how I read it must be implemented -- and
> > reading Microsoft's implementation and the reason they're
> > using SL *strongly* suggests they
> > also have read it that way. There are very probably many others.
>
> No, I think you're
